As we look across the charred remains of our communities left behind by wildfires, an opportunity emerges — the chance to live more wisely, with greater preparedness and resilience. While some causes of climate change are natural, shaped by the Earth’s long history of shifting weather patterns, our responsibility lies in what we can control. Communities may rebuild and plan for the next extreme weather event, but no place is safe forever. It is only a matter of time before a fire, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, tsunami, rising sea level, heat wave, or cold snap strikes — and these events are becoming more frequent.
Given the overwhelming scientific consensus on human contributions to climate change, why do many self-identified “climate deniers” continue to insist that climate change is not man-made, and that things will eventually balance out? Do biblical narratives of divine control over natural disasters shape these beliefs?
In search of answers, we interviewed a self-described climate skeptic who asked to remain anonymous. Her responses offer insight into how some individuals form — and hold onto — their views.
Excerpt from Our Interview
Question: “Do you believe that climate change is real?”
Answer: “I believe climate change is happening, but not that it is human-made. There have always been extreme weather conditions. I think eventually things will stabilize.”
Question: “Where did you get the information for forming your beliefs on climate change?”
Answer: “I don’t remember exactly. I’ve read articles and stories that say it’s not caused by humans. Honestly, I just trust my instincts on these things.”
Question: “If we showed you a report from an international group of scientists confirming human-caused climate change, would that change your mind?”
Answer: [Pause] “I don’t think so. No, it wouldn’t. I’d just look for reports that say the opposite. I know they exist. Corporate money is behind those reports blaming fossil fuels. I mean, California passed a law banning fossil fuels — I don’t remember the details — and nothing’s changed in their skies.”
Question: “Do you understand that climate change affects global systems, not just one region?”
Answer: “Yes, I understand that. But it doesn’t affect my opinion.”
Our Analysis
As a scientist and an attorney working in climate science related fields, we sought to learn how such beliefs persist despite a 99.9% consensus in the scientific community. The interview reflects a common pattern across parts of the United States today.
Behind the growing tension from fires on the West Coast and political polarization lies a deeper fear: many individuals distrust institutions — whether corporate, academic, or governmental. For some, skepticism is rooted in a belief that elites threaten personal freedom. For others, there’s fear that without decisive political leadership to address climate change, our planet may become uninhabitable.
These divisions are reinforced by confirmation bias — the psychological tendency to seek out and believe information that aligns with existing beliefs, while dismissing contradictory evidence. People choose the data that makes them feel “right,” often unknowingly locking themselves into a narrow perspective. This bias leads some to trust gut feelings over science, even on complex issues like climate change.
The stories of those who deny human-caused climate change often share recurring themes: that weather extremes have always existed, that divine forces control the environment, or that climate change will naturally resolve over time. These narratives are reinforced through media and peer conversations, offering a comforting sense of coherence that resists disruption — even by facts.
Accepting the views of scientists and experts means facing discomfort: that long-held beliefs may be wrong, that personal habits contribute to global harm, or that major changes are needed. For many, this is too much to accept — resulting in deep-rooted distrust toward scientists, academics, and environmental advocates.
But how did this mindset become so widespread, especially when the science is now clear? To understand this, we must consider the role of education.
The Role of Education in Climate Belief Formation
Climate science as we know it today only began to develop in the 1970s and 1980s[1]. For Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964)[2] and Gen X (born 1965–1980), climate change was not part of their school curriculum. In fact, only in the past thirty years have scientists proven that human activities significantly impact global climate systems[3].
Even today, climate change is not taught according to global scientific consensus in nearly two-thirds of American schools[4]. That means the majority of high school students are still not learning what 99.9% of scientists agree on[5]. Prior generations were often taught that Earth’s skies and oceans were too vast for humans to affect — the exact opposite of what we know today.
This foundational misinformation explains much of the skepticism we see now. For example, our interviewee cited California’s continued hazy skies as “proof” that environmental policies don’t work — despite the science showing otherwise.
The turning point in scientific consensus came in the early 1990s[6]. With improved climate models and evidence supporting theories like the Milankovitch cycles[7], scientists concluded that greenhouse gases — especially from human activity — are driving global temperature rise. While climate change has always included natural forces such as ocean circulation, plant cycles, solar radiation, tectonics, and volcanic activity[8], today’s changes are increasingly driven by human-induced emissions and deforestation.
It’s not incorrect to say climate change has natural causes — but focusing solely on those distracts from the human behaviors we can change.
Whose Responsibility Is It to Learn?
Some argue that adults should educate themselves after school. But is it fair to expect people to prioritize new knowledge over long-held beliefs, especially when schools once taught them the opposite?
In many educational systems, students are taught that the knowledge they receive in high school is fixed and final. Only in higher education are they introduced to the idea that knowledge evolves. Yet not everyone attends college — and not everyone reads scientific journals or engages with new research. Instead, people often collect snippets of information that validate what they already believe.
What Needs to Change
Our learning curve with climate change mirrors that of smoking. Not long ago, it was normal for parents to smoke cigarettes around their children — even indoors. Today, we know without a doubt that smoking causes cancer. Similarly, we now understand that human activity contributes to climate change. But the education gap remains wide.
Only in 2013 did the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) introduce climate change explicitly into school curriculums. By 2019, just nineteen states and Washington, D.C., had adopted these standards, while twenty-one others created similar programs[9]. These guidelines require students to learn not only the science of climate change, but also about cleaner technologies that reduce harm.
It took more than two decades from the first international climate assessments for U.S. schools to start teaching the science. As more schools adopt NGSS or similar models — like those developed by Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences — the influence of confirmation bias may begin to wane[10].
Yet, fossil fuel interests have long invested in shaping public opinion, including through influence on education. “Green” industries must now play catch-up[11]. It’s not hard to understand why someone working in coal, for example, would resist the idea that their job contributes to planetary harm[12].
The Long Game
Progress through education takes time. But it is essential for building the broad public support needed to elect leaders who will prioritize climate action. Compassion for those who were taught differently must go hand-in-hand with urgency about the threat we face.
Those fortunate enough to receive accurate, up-to-date education have a responsibility to share it. But just as importantly, we must teach people that knowledge evolves. If we treat scientific findings as unchanging “truths,” we risk reinforcing the same confirmation bias that prevents people from accepting new facts.
We must teach students — and remind adults — that science is a process, not a destination. What we believe today may shift as we gather more evidence. The ability to adapt to new understanding must become a core value in science education. Only then will we be prepared for a world that is changing faster than ever before.
“Green” industries also have a role to play — by investing in education that is inclusive and accessible to people of all ages, backgrounds, and communities.
The impact of these investments may not be immediate, but they are necessary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.”[13] To truly lead on climate change, we must combine compassion for differing perspectives with a bold rethinking of how we teach science — and what it means to know something in a rapidly changing world.
This article was co-authored by Angela Lipanovich, Esq., Estriatus Law and Jan Freiwald, PhD, Executive Director of Reef Check. Ms. Lipanovich is a cleantech attorney with decades of experience in the renewable energy industry. Dr. Freiwald specializes in marine science and runs Reef Check an international ocean conservation NGO with projects focused on climate science around the world.
[1] “Climate science” is the scientific study of weather conditions that exist in an area over a long period, and how and why they might change. See https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/climate-science
[2] Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964 are now 56 to 74 years old. Gen X born between 1965 and 1980 are now 40 to 55 years old. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
[3] A Brief History of Climate Change at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560
[4] Article: Climate confusion among U.S. teachers available at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664.full
[5] “The scientific “consensus” on climate change has gotten stronger, surging past the famous — and controversial — figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a study by James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, he reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers from nearly 70,000 authors on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only four reject anthropogenic climate change. See: Powell JL. Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2015;35(5-6):121-124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958.
[6] Climate Change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992 Assessments. IPCC First Assessment Report Overview and Policymaker Summaries and 1992 IPCC Supplement. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments.
[7] See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
[8] See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
[9] “Some States Still Lag in Teaching Climate Science” By Ines Kagubare, E&E News on February 8, 2019. Available at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-states-still-lag-in-teaching-climate-science/
[10] Stanford’s recommended middle and highschool curriculum can be found at https://earth.stanford.edu/climate-change-ed/curriculum
[11] See., e.g., Merchants of Doubt. Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway, May 2011.
[12] Could Greta Thunberg Inspire Appalachia And Coal Country To Embrace Change? By Ken Silvertstein. December 15, 2019 @ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2019/12/15/could-greta-thunberg-inspire-appalachia-and-coal-country-to-embrace-change/#7693fce536d0.
[13] As quoted in “Notorious RBG”